AuthorTopic: Can you add to the list of sextant numbers? (Read 385246 times)

Daniel's finds are perfect examples of the differences to be expected between a marine sextant box, and an aircraft octant box. The box dimensions and proportions are clearly different. The box found on Gardner was clearly identified as suitable for a sextant, making it unlikely to have been associated with the Earhart flight. However, we can't be certain that it wasn't a transitional variant between the two different styles of boxes used in the mid-1930's. There is a slim possibility that an aircraft octant might have been carried in a traditional sextant- style box. By the late 1930's, octant boxes were all different from sextant boxes.I have not heard yet if the Naval records office has found any documentation of the octant that Harry Manning loaned to Fred Noonan. If/when I do I'll post the results here.

It's a very interesting box. Handwritten in ink on the certificate of inspection: Use cigarette ashes to wash. The Certificate of Inspection covers up another stamp on the box, which seems to read "754-7..." and "B..." on the left. The instrument numbers are not die-stamped into the corners of the box. In the upper-right corner of the inside cover, it looks as though the maker's name and address are stamped in ink, with, perhaps, some annotations in pen:

Is there any advantage in listing sextant serial numbers that are far from the range surrounding #3500 and NO #1542?

What you see in the table is what we've found.

We're not suppressing any numbers.

I suppose you could say that we have enough data already to say that there isn't much of a correlation between the maker's number and the Naval Observatory number. We also have enough to show folks in archives and museums why we would like to find the original records. But it doesn't cost much to add to the list, and, as far as I can tell, it does no harm.

New listing on eBay for a Brandis. NO number is 1421. I've asked the seller for additional info.Brandis NO1421

I'll be away from this forum due to time management issues. If anyone cares to keep searching for new Brandis listings on eBay - just save the search for "sextant + brandis". eBay will notify you each time a new listing appears.

Vendor replies the manufacturer's number on the arc is 3331. The number on the box is 4551. As before the NO is 1421.

The Gardner box had 3500 and 1542 on it. I like the above numbers.

3500/1542 are still in play as a possible combination of Brandis number and N.O. number. In this excerpt from the table, the sextants are ordered by Naval Observatory number. Brandis numbers 3331, 3444 and 3500 (?) are in a nice order, but then we get 3483 with a higher N.O. number than 3500 (?) and 3339 with a lower N.O. number than 3331.

Thanks Marty for the above post. If we assume the Navy purchased sextants in batches, there would be no compelling reason to test them in order of manufacturer's serial number. However, the grouping of NO numbers around a particular set of manufacturer's numbers (the bounds of the batch) seems significant. Let's hope a few more sextants show up in the desired range.

Thanks Marty for the above post. If we assume the Navy purchased sextants in batches, there would be no compelling reason to test them in order of manufacturer's serial number. However, the grouping of NO numbers around a particular set of manufacturer's numbers (the bounds of the batch) seems significant. Let's hope a few more sextants show up in the desired range.

We can make the case that we have noted Brandis serial numbers running from 1844 to 5760.

We may make a reasonable surmise that, once upon a time, there was a Brandis numbered 3500.

We have noted N.O. numbers from 34 to at least 9746 (there are some dashed numbers, such as 5083-44 that represent a change in the numbering system, I believe).

We may make a reasonable surmise that, once upon a time, N.O. 1547 was assigned to an instrument.

In the absence of actually finding the long-sought logbooks, we can't say that Brandis 3500 was N.O. 1547. At best, we can say it might have been.

If we do find a Brandis 3500 with a different N.O. number, or a N.O. 1547 that is not serial number 3500, then that would destroy the idea that the box found on Niku may once have held a Navy instrument.

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.